I'd say it's more disingenuous to draw that distinction: to demanding an "original text".

No one forced you to claim, falsely, that we had any "original text" or even a "received text".

Quote:

And in any event, you have to account for the Hebrew religion, which by any account is very old.

Account for it? What does this even mean?

There were people around that had a lot of group mythologies to explain unanswered questions. Just like at every other point in documented human history.

Quote:

It isn't a question whether these people or events happened/existed at that time, it's a question of whether they are accurate.

What is meant by that last "they"?

Essentially, your point is this: We know for a fact that some stuff was said a long time ago and has been preserved to some extent.

Bravo.

To quote Christopher Hitchens, who put the natural refutation in its most apt form yet that I have seen:"Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."

As to contradictions in the Bible -- only in the most superficial sort of way. Any questionable text is bracketed and footnoted as such.

If you mean "contradictions" as in "real evidence contradicts the claims of the Bible", then this is quite false.
- There was no flight from Egypt. (source: "The Bible Unearthed")
- There was no wandering in the desert. (source: "The Bible Unearthed")
- There was no conquest of the promised land. (source: "The Bible Unearthed")

Many of the foundational events and sagas of both Jewish and Christian mythology are flatly untrue.

If you're interested in, say, a specific page, Google Books will let you read the section titled "A Conflict of Dates and Kings" (p. 56) and much much more.

Understandably, many of the "here's how it really happened according to actual, physical evidence" sections are not part of the preview. Don't give away the good stuff for free.

Um, right, groverat -- I'd love to argue about this on that level, but I have spent the last year or so pursuing this with a bit more erudite crowd -- so this isn't a level of argument I'm willing to pursue. The world doesn't revolve around the pop-athiest book of the month.

I don't know what else to tell you that I haven't repeated two or three times already: the quantity of people and research papers are there -- they aren't fundies by any stretch of the imagination, and seem to be quite happy interpreting the texts as ancient narratives that date to the times indicated. Maybe if you read enough Christopher Hitchens you'll find yourself able to question their existence as well.

Not interested.

Ed: One more thing -- just some advice: What you are struggling with probably constitutes some sort of existential threat, in that NONE of the Bible may be true, not one sentence as it pertains to Christ/God's self identification. If even one sentence is true, your entire existence can be called into question. This is what is causing you to single out the texts in the Bible with a rigor that is not applied to Plato, Virgil, etc. You might as well "prove" that Socrates existed; it's more than a little phony.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

One more thing -- just some advice: What you are struggling with probably constitutes some sort of existential threat, in that NONE of the Bible may be true, not one sentence as it pertains to Christ/God's self identification. If even one sentence is true, your entire existence can be called into question. This is what is causing you to single out the texts in the Bible with a rigor that is not applied to Plato, Virgil, etc. You might as well "prove" that Socrates existed; it's more than a little phony.

Umm, no.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Umm, yes -- not a single sentence of any part of those self-identifications can be true. If even one sentence of Christ speaking as the Son, in the Gospel of John, were true -- your position is finished.

Which is what we are really talking about here: it's not that God cannot speak it that God may not speak. Even on an existential level. You're automatically back to dogmatically stating what may or may not exist -- and it's phony.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Umm, yes -- not a single sentence of any part of those self-identifications can be true. If even one sentence of Christ speaking as the Son, in the Gospel of John, were true -- your position is finished.

Which is what we are really talking about here: it's not that God cannot speak it that God may not speak. Even on an existential level. You're automatically back to dogmatically stating what may or may not exist -- and it's phony.

It's not a threat. If it actually could be proved that Christianity is not just yet another in a long history of contrived explanations intended to assuage the fear of the unknown and control the huddled masses, call me a convert. I just don't see that happening, ever, for the exact same reason I choose not to believe in the tooth fairy. So again, umm, no. I'm not threatened whatsoever by your biblical circular logic.

I just wrote down on a piece of paper that God is a chocolate marshmallow shaped like the Empire State Building because it spoke through the 12th story window that is its mouth to my electric guitar, his one and only son, through which its vibrations told me these things. What an existential crisis you'd have if any part of that self-identification were true!

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

That would be the existence of the Israelites, the archeology, references to the historical period, bla, bla, bla. Something like Solomon's temple is a given, historically speaking. (And of course you, or anyone else are free to deny that Solomon or David existed, because we don't have a body, and videotape of the Temple being built, etc., but that's not how historical studies are conducted.)

As to contradictions in the Bible -- only in the most superficial sort of way. Any questionable text is bracketed and footnoted as such.

Annnnnnnd.... I'm starting to repeat myself here, and I've got a domain to move over so that DNS flips on the weekend, so I'll let you guys muse why we don't have Yeshua's Roman deposition, or a EEG of Pilate's wife during her dream.

(Look up historical-textual criticism.)

For the sake of argument, let's say a King David did exist. How does that prove the history of this person written in the OT is accurate? Where is the corroborating texts outside the Bible?

One more thing -- just some advice: What you are struggling with probably constitutes some sort of existential threat, in that NONE of the Bible may be true, not one sentence as it pertains to Christ/God's self identification. If even one sentence is true, your entire existence can be called into question. This is what is causing you to single out the texts in the Bible with a rigor that is not applied to Plato, Virgil, etc. You might as well "prove" that Socrates existed; it's more than a little phony.

Written texts by anyone at anytime do not pose an existential threat of any kind whatsoever.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

One cannot claim mutual exclusivity as none can ever exist.

One does not have to have faith or beliefs, to read, to understand, to interpret for themselves, the underlying objective truths.

For the sake of argument, let's say a King David did exist. How does that prove the history of this person written in the OT is accurate? Where is the corroborating texts outside the Bible?

Very quickly: it's not David in isolation. It's David, the existence of Solomon's temple it's archeological evidence for the cities, the invasions, the captivities -- it's texts that mention the peoples of that era, it's texts that mention people that were ONLY of that era, it's the extensive law structure that has it's roots somewhere in the past. In short, it's a rudimentary study of the texts, the languages used, the references, etc. Again, for the last time, it's the same scrutiny that any other text in the past is given.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

don't know what else to tell you that I haven't repeated two or three times already: the quantity of people and research papers are there -- they aren't fundies by any stretch of the imagination, and seem to be quite happy interpreting the texts as ancient narratives that date to the times indicated.

Give me some examples of these “research” papers.

I provided a direct link to a relevant text written by archaeologists who have spent decades in the field. You provide personal attacks and condescension.

Quote:

What you are struggling with probably constitutes some sort of existential threat, in that NONE of the Bible may be true, not one sentence as it pertains to Christ/God's self identification.

The issue at hand is your reliance on false statements.

False statement from dmz #1: There is an “original text” and/or a “received text”.
The truth: The best we have are copies of copies.

False statement from dmz #2: There are no contradictions in the Bible, and if there are, they are superficial.
The truth: The historical narrative of the OT did not actually happen.

Quote:

This is what is causing you to single out the texts in the Bible with a rigor that is not applied to Plato, Virgil, etc. You might as well "prove" that Socrates existed; it's more than a little phony.

Very quickly: it's not David in isolation. It's David, the existence of Solomon's temple it's archeological evidence for the cities, the invasions, the captivities -- it's texts that mention the peoples of that era, it's texts that mention people that were ONLY of that era, it's the extensive law structure that has it's roots somewhere in the past. In short, it's a rudimentary study of the texts, the languages used, the references, etc. Again, for the last time, it's the same scrutiny that any other text in the past is given.

Wait.... two other issues spring to mind...

1) If that is the case then does it also apply to other scriptures that also mention the same things historically but state different things theologically?

2) Does it also mean that where claims made in the Bible are disproved historically - and there are many, brush up on your Quirinius - then the opposite is also true; that the Bible can be proved to be false?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Very quickly: it's not David in isolation. It's David, the existence of Solomon's temple it's archeological evidence for the cities, the invasions, the captivities -- it's texts that mention the peoples of that era, it's texts that mention people that were ONLY of that era, it's the extensive law structure that has it's roots somewhere in the past. In short, it's a rudimentary study of the texts, the languages used, the references, etc. Again, for the last time, it's the same scrutiny that any other text in the past is given.

Excellent.

The Qur'an fulfils these criteria. And it's also newer.

Meanwhile, the Atharvaveda, oldest of the Sanskrit scriptures, is a fascinating account of pre-Vedic law, culture, ceremony and history and archeology indicates that the historical events it records took place before those commemorated by the Old Testament.

So, OK, let's treat the Bible "like any other text." It can take its place in the queue with the others. There's some beautiful stuff in it.

Going back to the original topic, who are the conservatives that really believe that the Bible is too liberal? I have been reading many blogs, forums, news articles and such but not one of them can point to a particular group or movement besides the Conservapedia folks that actually support this translation project. Have here been any? I am still looking and have not found even one mention of it.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Going back to the original topic, who are the conservatives that really believe that the Bible is too liberal? I have been reading many blogs, forums, news articles and such but not one of them can point to a particular group or movement besides the Conservapedia folks that actually support this translation project. Have here been any? I am still looking and have not found even one mention of it.

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view.

Quote:

Conservapedia is one of many conservative and Christian-themed Web sites imitating the format of mainstream sites to provide a right-wing or fundamentalist Christian alternative. The site has been the subject of criticism, both inside and outside of the United States, for bias and inaccuracies.

Translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

But this third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[1]

Quote:

1.↑ The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions.

WTF? Don't you just love the actual reference, not a book, not a published article reference of any known form, it's like referencing God;

1. God (personal communication).

Quote:

Benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses.

Dream on Wingnutians.

Quote:

Liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds.

Dream on Wingnutians.

Quote:

Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Dream on Wingnutians.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Going back to the original topic, who are the conservatives that really believe that the Bible is too liberal? I have been reading many blogs, forums, news articles and such but not one of them can point to a particular group or movement besides the Conservapedia folks that actually support this translation project. Have here been any? I am still looking and have not found even one mention of it.

I think we all agree here that the half-dozen so-called 'conservative' idiots at the helm of this project deserve to be pistol-whipped with unregistered guns and shipped to Guantanamo.

They don't understand conservatism and they don't understand the Bible. They should work for CNN.

What is the highest level of mathematics contained anywhere within the Bible?

What system of objective metrics, or Metrology is contained within the pages of whatever version of the Bible one wishes to believe in?

What are the actual historical facts contained within the Bible?

Are these actual in situ recorded facts or are they all merely hearsay?

The Earth, the Moon, the Sun, a bunch of twinkling lights or shiny things in the night sky, some places, some people. Did I miss anything?

For some biblical math:

The "6000 year old Earth", now popularly levied by the creationists and accepted by a large number of (mostly US) Christians was started by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland. According to his mathematics, he derived that Earth was created at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC. (I wonder what was going on during the previous afternoon?).

An almost parallel study by John Lightfoot deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

This claptrap is believed implicitly by 10s of millions of people in these modern, supposedly enlightened times. But having said that, there are many just-as-bizarre, or untenable pronouncements which have gotten popular traction even in my own lifetime. Such is the power of coercion that unfounded myth often trumps reality/rationality... and when promoted by an authority (especially a religious faith or a government), especially with a good helping of repetition, courtesy of the priesthood or the modern equivalent, the corporate media, it is hardly surprising that the populace remains susceptible to accepting mythology over scientific realism, regardless of whether one's referring to medieval or modern times.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

WTF? Don't you just love the actual reference, not a book, not a published article reference of any known form, it's like referencing God;

1. God (personal communication).

Dream on Wingnutians.

Dream on Wingnutians.

Dream on Wingnutians.

Let me reiterate

"Going back to the original topic, who are the conservatives that really believe that the Bible is too liberal? I have been reading many blogs, forums, news articles and such but not one of them can point to a particular group or movement besides the Conservapedia folks that actually support this translation project. Have here been any? I am still looking and have not found even one mention of it."

Anyone?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I think we all agree here that the half-dozen so-called 'conservative' idiots at the helm of this project deserve to be pistol-whipped with unregistered guns and shipped to Guantanamo.

They don't understand conservatism and they don't understand the Bible. They should work for CNN.

So you have not found any either. I am asking because many blogs and news stories are trying to make it seem like this is some vast right wing christian plot to rewrite the bible. Which, as far as I can see is not the case.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I'm quite willing to believe this isn't much more than a fringe of the fringe ultraconservatives that are behind this and support this. However, I think a much larger portion of the born-again movement wouldn't oppose a modified ConservoBible if one were completed and handed to them from on high (the nutter leaders).

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

"Going back to the original topic, who are the conservatives that really believe that the Bible is too liberal? I have been reading many blogs, forums, news articles and such but not one of them can point to a particular group or movement besides the Conservapedia folks that actually support this translation project. Have here been any? I am still looking and have not found even one mention of it."

Anyone?

Dude, you still don't get it, one is too many.

There are as many faiths as those who have faith.

Houston, we have a problem.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

However, I think a much larger portion of the born-again movement wouldn't oppose a modified ConservoBible if one were completed and handed to them from on high (the nutter leaders).

And you would be completely wrong.

You obviously have no understanding of the history of the Bible in North America, or how a Bible translation is completed and adopted. Even a respected publisher like Zondervan recently had to backpedal and scrap the TNIV because conservative churches (of many different denominations) refused to accept a translation that was on the edgier side of the gender accuracy debate (among other things.)

Your very idea of 'high' leaders massaging the texts for their own purposes is laughably insane in the light of the ideals of the Reformation and core conservative Christian ideals.

I suppose the "born again movement" is just one of those religious groups like the Mormons or the Watchtower, huh? All them religious folk think the same way, right?

Why do liberals feel so compelled to comment on things they don't understand?

There is only a problem if the people that believe what you are upset about actually believe what you are trying to claim they believe. I cannot find any that do. If one person believes it, they are an anomaly, and as such deserve to be watched and for the most part ignored. This is obviously not a single person, but it is not a movement either from what I can see. Still looking to see if any "reputable" or "widely acknowledged" christian group backs this. I have not even found one and I have been looking.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I'm quite willing to believe this isn't much more than a fringe of the fringe ultraconservatives that are behind this and support this.

I can believe that about you. You may irritate me, but you usually have a fairly good grasp of reality.

Quote:

However, I think a much larger portion of the born-again movement wouldn't oppose a modified ConservoBible if one were completed and handed to them from on high (the nutter leaders).

However, I know you are wrong on this point. I know many born-again Christians, and they are all completely opposed to this nonsense. Some had not heard of it before and when told were very upset that anyone would even attempt to make the Bible a political tool in any way. I will be speaking with more in the following week and will let you know how many are looking for a new "less liberal" translation to add to their bookshelf.

Heck, going back to my original comment in the thread, I actually fully retract that it would be nice to have a good free translation from these guys. After reading their site, it would likely not be worth the electricity it takes to transmit it. It would be a "miracle" if their version were accepted by any mainstream Christian organization. Let alone any true Christians.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

There is only a problem if the people that believe what you are upset about actually believe what you are trying to claim they believe. I cannot find any that do. If one person believes it, they are an anomaly, and as such deserve to be watched and for the most part ignored. This is obviously not a single person, but it is not a movement either from what I can see. Still looking to see if any "reputable" or "widely acknowledged" christian group backs this. I have not even found one and I have been looking.

Lee Harvey Oswell was just one person.

So are you suggesting that this creation of Hell's Bible is not newsworthy?

Or not worthy of a PO thread?

Conservapedia is most certainly a movement, a huge ole stinker of a bowl clogging shit island of a bowel movement, that is.

You know what, let's just wait and see the end product, how many of this version of the "Cracker's Bible" are sold, in the good old USofA over time.

Oh, and strawman on "what you are upset about" because I'm not upset one bit. In fact, I'd suggest that you rewrite your first sentence as I can't make any sense out of it.

It's all good times as the growing fringe right, in whatever form or function it takes, just can't stop marginalizing themselves and taking the rest of the rgiht with them.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

So now people who want to rewrite the Bible are like Lee Harvey Oswald? Not going any further in this conversation with you after this post. Have fun vilifying whomever you feel like...

Quote:

So are you suggesting that the creation of Hell's Bible is not newsworthy?

Or not worthy of a PO thread?

Actually, what I am saying is, trying to say that this group represents all conservative Christians is not correct.

Quote:

Conservapedia is most certainly a movement, a huge ole stinker of a bowl clogging shit island of a bowel movement, that is.

That is your opinion. And you are entitled to it. I don't see them as a movement, I see them as a group of people trying to become something more. They may succeed, but I seriously doubt they will. They are not off to an auspicious start.

Quote:

You know what, let's just wait and see the end product, how many of this version of the "Cracker's Bible" are sold, in the good old USofA over time.

I hope they sell none. But I agree, lets wait and see.

Quote:

Oh, and strawman on "what you are upset about" because I'm not upset one bit. In fact, I'd suggest that you rewrite your first sentence as I can't make any sense out of it.

Hello pot, the kettle says you're black as well.

Quote:

It's all good times as the growing fringe right, in whatever form or function it takes, just can't stop marginalizing themselves.

Just don't jump in after them... Have fun.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You obviously have no understanding of the history of the Bible in North America, or how a Bible translation is completed and adopted. Even a respected publisher like Zondervan recently had to backpedal and scrap the TNIV because conservative churches (of many different denominations) refused to accept a translation that was on the edgier side of the gender accuracy debate (among other things.)

Your very idea of 'high' leaders massaging the texts for their own purposes is laughably insane in the light of the ideals of the Reformation and core conservative Christian ideals.

I suppose the "born again movement" is just one of those religious groups like the Mormons or the Watchtower, huh? All them religious folk think the same way, right?

Why do liberals feel so compelled to comment on things they don't understand?

So you really think there aren't folks out there who just follow blindly whatever their priest/pastor/minister gives them? Aren't there certainly some wacky conservatives among them? Did I ever say it would go mainstream? Do you ever lay off the caffeine?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I don't know why they need to bother with a 'Conservative Bible' anyway....in the US the job of Conservatizing every last iota of Christ's message was done at the time of the Pilgrim Fathers.

And since then there have evolved myriad techniques of ignoring anything that goes against ultra-conservatism or right-wing ideology should it ever permeate the rather limited critical faculties of most Xians - and even this is very, very rare.

Xianity jumped the shark so long ago that now I - who believe in all sorts of quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo and have nothing but contempt for non-thinking idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens and all the rest of the neo-atheist bandwagon - feel far closer to atheists than a bunch of right-wing rabble whose only interest in anything remotely 'spiritual' seems to stem from a psychological need to justify their own innate prejudice, rancour and bias.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Xianity jumped the shark so long ago that now I - who believe in all sorts of quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo and have nothing but contempt for non-thinking idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens and all the rest of the neo-atheist bandwagon - feel far closer to atheists than a bunch of right-wing rabble whose only interest in anything remotely 'spiritual' seems to stem from a psychological need to justify their own innate prejudice, rancour and bias.

If you get a chance, read your last paragraph and tell me how your position differs from those you are denigrating, please.

My own spiritualism consists of giving thanks for those I love and appreciating stuff like a beautiful spring morning and all that, so I'm not sure what the "quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo" stuff is you're talking about, but it sure sounds like you're biased towards your position and against Christianity.

If you get a chance, read your last paragraph and tell me how your position differs from those you are denigrating, please.

My own spiritualism consists of giving thanks for those I love and appreciating stuff like a beautiful spring morning and all that, so I'm not sure what the "quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo" stuff is you're talking about, but it sure sounds like you're biased towards your position and against Christianity.

One word: irony

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

That's the difference? Your position is ironic compared to Christianity?

NO, I was being kind of sarcastic initially but my position is more seriously considered...just wasn't sure this was the place for serious consideration haha!

Let me put it another way: I would view rationalism as the benchmark in these matters.

Many believers arrive at their position through irrational means (just as many atheists are irrational in combatting their beliefs) - it is the irrationalism that I am opposing not necessarily the core belief.

For example: I happen to believe Jesus was a historical figure who is highly relevant in many ways it is not necessary to go into. Where such a belief shades into the idea that he was 'divine' (say" I would claim it is irrational...not because of the claim of divinity per se but because of the theological underpinning of the claim which is contradictory and clearly constructed and can be shown to be so (that is to any rational person with an open mind).

You might say that this is exactly what the believers say. And so it probably is. It is also what flat-earthers say too.

But my main Criticism above was not of Christianity as such but of US Xianity which I contend is indistinguishable in the main from a right-wing ideology and as such I think should rightly be decried.

I don't like right-wingers

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

NO, I was being kind of sarcastic initially but my position is more seriously considered...just wasn't sure this was the place for serious consideration haha!

Let me put it another way: I would view rationalism as the benchmark in these matters.

Many believers arrive at their position through irrational means (just as many atheists are irrational in combatting their beliefs) - it is the irrationalism that I am opposing not necessarily the core belief.

For example: I happen to believe Jesus was a historical figure who is highly relevant in many ways it is not necessary to go into. Where such a belief shades into the idea that he was 'divine' (say" I would claim it is irrational...not because of the claim of divinity per se but because of the theological underpinning of the claim which is contradictory and clearly constructed and can be shown to be so (that is to any rational person with an open mind).

You might say that this is exactly what the believers say. And so it probably is. It is also what flat-earthers say too.

But my main Criticism above was not of Christianity as such but of US Xianity which I contend is indistinguishable in the main from a right-wing ideology and as such I think should rightly be decried.

I don't like right-wingers

But the only "proof" that any spiritualism can lay claim to is "there is a force responsible for the order that exists", but the source of that order is just as likely to be some "self-conscious entity that is directly engaged in our lives and sent his only son", as it is a "naturally ordered matrix"... "God" as opposed to "nature", since there is no sure explanation possible for creation in the first place. ANYthing in between is purely speculative no matter what the rationale, so one set of beliefs has as much going for it as another.

But the only "proof" that any spiritualism can lay claim to is "there is a force responsible for the order that exists", but the source of that order is just as likely to be some "self-conscious entity that is directly engaged in our lives and sent his only son", as it is a "naturally ordered matrix"... "God" as opposed to "nature", since there is no sure explanation possible for creation in the first place. ANYthing in between is purely speculative no matter what the rationale, so one set of beliefs has as much going for it as another.

Except for the fact that we all can observe nature.

We all can not observe God as that is a matter of blind faith.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!